Plan Cites Foreign Science Curricula

Citing new research on science curricula in the Soviet Union and
China, a leading U.S. science educator last week urged American high
schools to emulate those countries by providing more intensive
instruction in biology, chemistry, and physics for all students.

Newly translated data show that virtually all Soviet and Chinese
students study those subjects for at least four years, Bill G.
Aldridge, executive director of the National Science Teachers
Association, said in an interview.

By contrast, he noted, American students--who performed poorly on a
recent 24-nation science assessment--take only one year of each
subject, if they take them at all.

The Soviet and Chinese curricula suggest that high-school students
are capable of more intensive science instruction than most American
schools currently offer, he said.

"Nobody can learn those things at a high level if they are thrown
into a class for one year and taught in a highly theoretical way.''

As an alternative to the traditional American "layer cake''
approach--in which decreasing numbers of students take a year of
biology, followed by a year each of chemistry and physics--Mr. Aldridge
proposed that science courses in grades 10-12 be restructured to blend
instruction in all three subjects.

In addition, he said, "we should make clear that this is a
curriculum for everybody, not just future scientists.''

Mr. Aldridge acknowledged that it was unlikely that schools would
follow his recommendations and overhaul their curricula immediately.
But he urged the National Science Foundation to select about six
districts to serve as national models for such a system.

"If a model school did this, and we see success, we would see a lot
of people picking up on it,'' he predicted.

Subjects 'Distorted'

The new data are based on translations of Soviet and Chinese
educational materials by SRI International, a California-based research
firm. They were released last week at the NSTA's annual meeting in St.
Louis.

The firm found that students in the Soviet Union study biology for
six years, chemistry for four years, and physics for five years. In
China, students take biology and chemistry for four years each, and
physics for five years.

By contrast, Mr. Aldridge noted, 59 percent of U.S. high-school
graduates in 1980 had taken neither physics nor chemistry.

He said his proposed restructuring of science instruction was
designed to overcome that deficiency.

Additional coursework or teachers would not be needed, he said,
because teachers could divide a five-hour-per-week science course into
units of biology, chemistry, and physics.

Even without additional class time, the new curriculum would improve
instruction, he predicted. Too often in the current system, he argued,
teachers present highly abstract topics to students who have had little
preparation.

Under Mr. Aldridge's proposed three-year program, teachers in the
first year would present topics in a "descriptive, hands-on'' way. The
second year would introduce more empirical instruction and
experimentation, while the third year would cover the theories behind
what students had already learned.

The revised curriculum would also allow more integration among the
disciplines, Mr. Aldridge said. For example, he noted, topics such as
D.N.A. (deoxyribonucleic acid) and genetics, usually taught in
10th-grade biology classes, are more understandable to students with
some background in chemistry.

Currently, he said, "we distort biology. It could be handled, if
sequenced properly.''

Vol. 07, Issue 29

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.